DOCSLIB.ORG

Sample Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sample Notes SAMPLE NOTES WEEK 6: ASSAULT E East, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown, Vol 1, p 406, defined the common law offence of assault; ‘an assault is any attempt or offer with force and violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice of wantonness, as by striking him, or even by holding up one’s fist at him in a threatening manner, or with such other circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with a present ability of using actual violence against the person. Where the injury us actually inflicted, it amounts to a batter (which includes an assault) and this, however small it may be, as by spitting in a man’s face, or any way touching him in anger without any lawful occasion. But if the occasion were merely accidental or undersigned, or if it were lawful… it is no assault or battery in the law”. In New South Wales, the penalty for assault is prescribes in statutes; Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61. However, the definition continues to be found at common law. COMMON ASSAULT Common assault is the most basic kind of assault, and can be tried either on indictment or summarily. Historically, there was a distinction between assault and battery. This is no longer the case and the term ‘assault’ merges them. The current concept3 of common assault incorporates two historical offences of assault: (a) (Psychic) Assault: where the defendant intentionally or recklessly put the victim in fear or imminent unlawful contact or physical harm- R v McNamara (1954) VLR 291. Recklessness- Subjective. (b) Battery: where the defendant intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful physical force or contact against the victim- R v Venna (1976) QB 421, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) 1 QB 439. Recklessness- Subjective The defendant will generally be charged with assault whether they committed a (psychic) assault or a battery. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT- SPECIFIC INTENT Categories- - Further specific intent - Injury - Victim - Weapon or instrument - Dangerous substances - In company Specific Intent To murder- ss 27-30 To commit indictable offence- ss 33B, 58 To resist or prevent apprehension- s 33B, 58 Injury Actual Bodily Harm- s 59(1) Wounding- s33- intent to do GBH. Wounding is a puncture, GBH- s33 (with specific intent), s35(2)- reckless, 254- negligent SAMPLE NOTES Victim Police officer- ss58, 60 Law Enforcement Official- s60A Child (at birth)- s42 Member of clergy- s56 School staff or student- s60E Weapon/Instrument Ss33, 33A, 33B Dangerous Substance s38, 39, 41… In Company S35(1) Mens Rea The mens rea for assault is specified at common law. The mens rea of common assault is intentionally or recklessly; (a) creating an apprehension of imminent unlawful contact (b) effecting unlawful contact Intentional Assault It is clear from MacPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184; s 20 (SA), that assault can be committed intentionally. It is unnecessary that the intentional application of force be accompanied by hostility; Boughey v R (1986) 65 ALR 609- D was a doctor who applied manual pressure to V’s carotid arteries intending to increase the victim’s sexual excitement for the purpose of sexual activity. When the victim died due to D’s actions, he was charged with murder. He argues no intent to injure her, however it was held that hostile intent is not an ingredient to the offence of battery at common law where for is intentionally applied to the victim. Reckless Assault An assault can be committed where the defendant knows his conduct would possibly (a) give the victim reasonable grounds for apprehending imminent unlawful contact (psychic) (b) effect unlawful contact (battery) The authorities have made it clear that the standard for reckless assault is that of “possibility” rather than “probability”- MacPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184, Coleman v R (1990) NSWLR 467. R v Venna (1976)- the defendant lashed out at police officers seeking to arrest him, resulting in the defendant fracturing one police officer’s hand. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He stated that he had not intended to hit the victim, but was kicking in an attempt to get off the ground. It was held that if he recognised the possibility of unlawful contact he has the mens rea for assault. He was found guilty. RECKLESS ASSAULT MUST BE SUBJECTIVE MacPherson v Brown (1975) stresses that the defendant is not to be judged by an objective standard of what a reasonable person would have foreseen. In this case, the SAMPLE NOTES trial judge held that, while he doubted that the defendant was aware that the victim would be frightened by his conduct, he had been reckless and ought to have known that his conduct would give reasonable grounds for creating that fear. He was found guilty of assault. On appeal, the trial judge’s decision was overturned. Brad CJ (at 188) stated “it is contrary to fundamental principles… to judge a man… not by his actual intention, knowledge, or foresight, but by what a reasonable prudent man would have intended, known or foreseen in the circumstances.” Negligence A common assault cannot be committed negligently. However, sections have been introduced to cover cases where the defendant has negligently cause an injurt (s 54 NSW). In these cases, the prosecution must prove the level of negligence was criminal- R v D (1984) 3 NSWLR 29. Actus Reus The actus reus for assault is also specified at common law; The defendant must; (a) Act so as to create an apprehension of imminent unlawful contact (psychic assault) (b) Apply unlawful contact against the person of another (battery) Psychic Assault Positive Act Must be a positive act. An omission to act does not constitute an assault- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969). The use of words has also been held to constitute a positive act in all common law jurisdictions- Tout v R (1987), R v Knight (1988 35 A Crim R 314. State of Mind of the Victim- Apprehension of Harm The victim must have been put in the fear of imminent unlawful contact As a consequence, the victim must be aware of the threat. If they are unconscious of asleep, then a psychic assault cannot be committed. In Pemble v R (1971) 124 CLR 107 the victim was unaware that the defendant was pointing a rifle at her back. Menzies J therefore held that the defendant had not committed an assault. It has been suggested that the victim’s fear must be reasonable in the sense that a reasonable person would have also been in fear- Barton v Armstrong. Questions are more likely to arise around whether the defendant had the necessary mens rea to create the apprehension of imminent unlawful contact rather than if the victim’s fear was reasonable. If the victim’s fear is unreasonable, and the defendant has no knowledge of this timidity, then clearly the accused will not have the mens rea. Accused takes the victim as they find them (whether timid or robust)- Ryan v Kuhl Ability to Execute Threat The defendant does not need to be able to execute the threat, as the essence of the offence is the effect that is created in the victim’s mind. Thus, where the defendant points a toy gun at the victim which the victim believes to be real, he can be convicted with assault- R v Everingham (1949) SAMPLE NOTES Imminence of Harm At common law, the victim must apprehend “imminent” or “immediate” unlawful violence, threats of future violence should not amount to an assault- R v Knight (1988). “Immediate and Continuing Fear” The requirement of immediacy can cause some issues. However, the courts have used the concept of ‘immediate and continuing fear’ to interpret the requirement of imminence in a way which is sympathetic to the plight of the victim. Zanker v Vartzokas (1988)- the victim accepted a life from the defendant. During the trip the accused offered her money for sexual activity to which she declined; he persisted. She demanded to be let out of the car but he sped up, even when she threatened to jump out. The defendant then said, “I am going to take you to my mate’s house. He will really fix you up”. She felt so much fear that she opened the door and jumped out resulting in some injuries. The magistrate dismissed the case due to lack of imminence in the threats. White J allowed the appeal, holding that the concept of a continuing threat should be applied. Threats made over the Telephone In Barton v Armstrong (1969) 2 NSWR 451, the defendant made threats over the phone, and it was held that he could be found guilty of assault provided that the threats were sufficient to ground a fear or imminent violence in the victim’s mind- Taylor J (at 455)- “if the threat produces the fear or apprehension of physical violence, then I am of the opinion that the law is breached, although the victim does not know when that physical violence may be breached.” Silent Phone Calls: Threatening phone calls have caused problems for courts in assessing imminence of threats that may be made appreciable distances away. R v Ireland; R v Burstow- silence can amount to assault. Conditional Threats Conditional threats are threats where the defendant imposes some condition upon the victim, which if the victim does not meet, he will inflict some violence. This raises the issue of imminence, because if the victim meets the requirements, there would be no need to apprehend imminent unlawful contact. The requirement of imminent infliction of physical harm is the ultimate factor in determining liability The courts have approached conditional threats in two ways - Looking at the words of the threat - Considering whether the defendant had the right to impose the condition Infliction of Harm as a Result of Psychic Assault The accused can be charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm if his psychic assault causes the victim to act in such a way as to inflict actual bodily harm.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Criminal Law Exam Notes
    SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW Assault Common Assault • Assault is: • any act committed intentionally or recklessly • that causes another person • to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence → Fagan, Venna • Section 61 → sets out maximum punishment, 2 years imprisonment Actus Reus • Unlawful contact in applying force to another • Note → spitting at and contacting another with spit will constitute assault: Smith; DPP v JWH • The act of creating fear of immediate unlawful contact • Victim must actually be put in fear → Kuhl • The harm threatened must be sufficiently imminent → Zanker v Vartzokas; Knight • Assault can be committed by telephone if sufficiently imminent → Barton v Armstrong; Knight • It is unnecessary that force be accompanied by hostility → Boughey • Mere touching can amount to an assault → Collins v Wilcock • D may be relieved of liability on other grounds, such as: • Lack of mens rea • Implied consent, for example, contact during ordinary social intercourse → Boughey • Use of lawful force, such as self-defence • Victim’s state of mind: • Must actually fear → Kuhl • Must be aware → Pemble (rifle to the back) • Reasonable fear → Barton v Armstrong • Defendant aware of unusual timidity → unreasonableness of fear may not prevent conviction → MacPherson • Imminence: • Fear must be imminent although ‘immediate and continuing‘ can suffice → Zanker v Vartzokas • Threats of future violence not assault → Knight • Examples: • Where D was in another room → Lewis • Where D was on other side of locked door about to force entry → Beech • Where D
    [Show full text]
  • Lesley Klaff (PDF)
    Presented at International Study Group Education and Research on Antisemitism Colloquium I: Aspects of Antisemitism in the UK 5 December 2009, London Lesley Klaff Anti-Semitism on Campus Summary Lesley's presentation considered the role of the university historically in promoting classical anti-Semitism and its current role in promoting contemporary anti-Semitism. She made the connection between anti-Zionist rhetoric and anti- Semitic hate speech. She argued that the proliferation of anti-Zionist rhetoric on UK campuses in recent years, emboldened by the UCU's annual calls for discriminatory measures against Israel, cannot be supported by the 'free speech' or 'academic freedom' justification, and that the university authorities have both a legal and moral duty to prohibit it. In this context she considered the documented harms to minority students of on-campus hate speech and the legislative context of hate speech with particular reference to hostile environment harassment. She also looked at the ways in which anti-Zionist rhetoric on campus flouts university Equality and Diversity and anti-harassment policies. Anti-Semitism on Campus A Modern Perspective Structure The university and classical anti-Semitism The university and contemporary anti-Semitism Some phenomenological experiences Discussion and Conclusion Anti-Semitism on Campus: Nothing New Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904): attempted to put traditional religion based hatred of Jews on a scientific footing - appeal to modernity’s preference for epistemological criteria. Firm theoretical basis for anti-Semitic discourses – religious justification replaced by an objective “scientific” justification. “Aryan Science” - racial theories of late 19th and early 20th century made their mark on universities and faculties.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Handbook YOUR PRACTICAL GUIDE to the LAW in NEW SOUTH WALES
    The Law Handbook YOUR PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE LAW IN NEW SOUTH WALES 15th EDITION REDFERN LEGAL CENTRE PUBLISHING 01_Title_piii-iii.indd 3 28-Nov-19 08:08:13 Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 19 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 First edition published by Redfern Legal Centre as The Legal Resources Book (NSW) in 1978. First published as The Law Handbook in 1983 Second edition 1986 Third edition 1988 Fourth edition 1991 Fifth edition 1995 Sixth edition 1997 Seventh edition 1999 Eighth edition 2002 Ninth edition 2004 Tenth edition 2007 Eleventh edition 2009 Twelfth edition 2012 Thirteenth edition 2014 Fourteenth edition 2016 Fifteenth edition 2019 Note to readers: While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this book is as up to date and as accurate as possible, the law is complex and constantly changing and readers are advised to seek expert advice when faced with specific problems. The Law Handbook is intended as a guide to the law and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice. ISBN: 9780455243689 © 2020 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited asserts copyright in the compilation of the work and the authors assert copyright in their individual chapters. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Marian Allsopp Dissertation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Theses Online INVISIBLE WOUNDS: A GENEALOGY OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND OTHER PSYCHIC HARMS INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER This dissertation is about how the concept of harm, damage or wound is applied as a metaphor to a site often called the self or the soul. This is the social space of the individual subject, which is, paradoxically, placed by our language and culture in a person’s interior – a place where we are all said to be vulnerable and endangered by a potentially hostile environment. The thesis consists of a series of studies which are designed to show how the concept of harm to an inner life emerges from different discursive contexts, and how it does so in distinctly variable versions: psychological, emotional, neurological or social, in more or less stable hybrid forms. Using primary sources which are mostly documentary, supported by some interviews, the studies range from a look at the psychiatric history of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and at the story of its rewriting in English tort law; the recent reprised popularity of attachment theory and its marriage to neurology and a look at the career of the concept of the emotional abuse of children as a social problem category in the legal/administrative processes of Child Protection. These are introduced by a first chapter which concentrates on the metaphoric content of invisible wounds or psychic trauma 11 and the way it produces particular forms of the self. The studies which follow this are clustered around the literature and practices of the psychiatric, psychological, psycho-analytic, social work and legal professions, in order to show how the work of these professionals makes the concept of a psychic injury visible, discussible, treatable, administrable and justiciable.
    [Show full text]
  • Herring: Criminal Law Concentrate, 6Th Edition
    Herring: Criminal Law Concentrate, 6th edition Accessories Those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence; or are party to a joint enterprise with the principal. See chapter 10. Actual bodily harm (ABH) An element of the actus reus of s 47 OAPA. ABH is a bodily harm which is more than transient and trifling. See chapter 5. Actus reus The term used to classify those elements of the offence which do not relate to D’s state of mind (mens rea). See chapter 2. Aid, abet, counsel, or procure See accessories. Assault Also known as a common assault, a technical assault, and a psychic assault; it is where D intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force. See chapter 5. Attempt An inchoate offence governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. See chapter 9. Automatism A defence (although the prosecution bear the burden of proof in relation to it) which negates actus reus. See chapters 2 and 14. Basic intent This term relates to the type of mens rea in the crime charged. See specific intent and chapter 14. Battery Also known as a common assault or a physical assault, it is where D intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to V. Burden of proof This is the duty of a party to satisfy the fact-finder, to a standard set by law, of the facts in issue. Causation This is a key element of result crimes, and requires the prosecution to prove D caused the result. Chain of causation This can be established in both fact and law, but D caused the result only if there is no break in the chain.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
    4 Non-fatal offences against the person 4.1 Objectives By the end of this chapter you should be able to: 1 Defi ne and analyse assault and battery 2 Explain the concept of ‘unlawful’ force and how it affects the offence of battery 3 Defi ne and analyse the offences created by ss. 18, 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861 4 Identify the problems surrounding the mens rea of s. 47 5 Explain the differences between ss. 18 and 20 in terms of (a) mens rea and (b) actus reus EXAMPLEEXAMPLE Barry andand DaviDavidd are stustudentsdents at a school.school. TTheyhey inindulgedulge in a ‘‘game’game’ wwherebyhereby ototherher bboysoys are grabbed and, despite their protests and attempts to get awaaway,y, thrown ‘some nine or ten ffeet’eet’ into tthehe air. TThehe victims receive serious injury on llanding,anding, bbutut Barry anandd DaviDavidd claim that theythey have no intention of causing their victims ananyy serious harm, though thetheyy anticipate tthathat tthehe victims mightmight susufferffer ddiscomfort,iscomfort, bbumpsumps anandd bbruises,ruises, ‘‘asas bboysoys ddoo in plaplaygroundyground roughness’. Can criminal punishment of BarryBarry and David be justifi ed, and, iiff so, how?how? We will return to this exampleexample throughoutthroughout this chapter.chapter. ByBy the end of the chapterchapter youyou sshouldhould bbee aableble to ddecide:ecide: witwithhttp://www.pbookshop.comh wwhichhich ooffences,ffences, iiff any, migmightht tthehe bboysoys bbee ccharged?harged? 4.2 Introduction Th is chapter is concerned with non-sexual off ences of violence falling short of killing people. Like so much of the criminal law, it is an area where logic and consistency are in short supply and there is a serious need for reform.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: a Historical and Comparative Perspective
    Barclay, Grant (2017) The structure of assault in Scots law: a historical and comparative perspective. LL.M(R) thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8569/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten:Theses http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Structure of Assault in Scots Law: A Historical and Comparative Perspective Grant Barclay LL.B. (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of LL.M. (by Research) School of Law College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow October 2017 Abstract This thesis reviews both the history and current comparative landscape of the law of assault with a view to determining the optimal approach to be taken by Scots law in structuring its crime of assault. There is very little in the current literature offering either kind of review, and equally there has been very little analysis of the desirability of a single offence versus other methods of structuring assault or non-fatal offences against the person generally. These issues are therefore addressed in this paper, starting with an extensive examination of the legal history surrounding breaches of physical integrity from the seventeenth century right up to the present day.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Legal Practitioners Admisson Board Criminal
    LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSON BOARD CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE MARCH 2020 EXAMINER’S COMMENTS General Comments Overall, the standard of the answers was similar to previous semesters, as reflected by a similar percentage failure rate to previous semesters. There was an increase in the number of students who sat the exam this semester compared to last semester. Most students were able to identify the major issues in the questions and set out the elements of the offences and defences identified. However, in an open book exam, this, of itself, is not regarded as laudable. Considering that students were able to take into the exam their lecture notes and copies of the materials provided on Web campus that clearly set out the elements of the offences and defences that are covered in the course, the minimum standard expected is that students identified the major issues in each question and set out the elements of the offences being discussed. The students who failed the exam usually demonstrated poor exam technique by answering some questions in detail, but failing to answer one or more the questions at all, thus being allocated no marks for that answer. At both the weeknight lectures and the second weekend school exam technique was discussed, and it was emphasised that students should allocate an equal amount of time to answering each of the questions. For the students who unfortunately failed the subject, it is hoped that they reflect upon their preparation for the exam and the manner in which they allocated their time during the exam. The students who obtained higher marks were the students who discussed in detail the application of each element of the offence or defence being discussed to the facts of the problem, rather than just setting out the elements with little or no discussion of how the elements applied to the facts of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colonial Security Service
    THE COLONIAL SECURITY SERVICE INTRODUCTION: Policing Charter of 2265. The charter was greeted by ColSec, and many colonial In a civilisation as dispersed as that of the United governments, with mixed feelings; many felt it Earth Federation (UEF), the enforcement of law was typical of a UEF centralist approach requires a special breed of men and women to hijacking real colonial issues for political ends. police remote colonial settlements light years The Charter involved the re-organization of away from anywhere, and maintain the security ColSec hierarchy and a tightening up of arrest of the spacelanes and trade routes. and trial procedures. These changes have caused some tensions within ColSec and have Alongside the highest aspirations and ideals of attracted criticism from colonial media. humanity that left Earth to begin the colonisation of space there travelled the criminal, the dangerous and the malevolent. To combat these ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE: rogue elements in the colonies the UEF have created the Colonial Security Force (ColSec). In the simplest terms there are three layers to ColSec, under the mandates of the Federal Law ColSec. The ColSec officer works under the Enforcement Authority (FLEA) have been auspices of ColSec policy which is dictated by charged with the day to day security of colonies the mandate granted to FLEA by the UEF. of the UEF. Policing the colonies is a tangled nightmare of logistics, poor communications 1. Uniform: The traditional uniformed police between systems, local politics and a constant offer whose duties comprise of traffic, patrol, arms race between criminals and the police. security and crime prevention.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) S59 ‑ Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
    Offence Common Assault Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Rule s61 ‑ Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s59 ‑ Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ‑ Donovan (1934) ‑ I ncludes any harm or injury c alculated ‑ Fagan [1969] ‑ Must be an act, not omission to interfere with health/comfort, n eed not be ‑ Darby v DPP (2004) ‑ Assault = apprehension of unlawful contact; Baery = actual inflicon of force. permanent, no doubt, be more than transient/trifling’ ‑ Knight (1998) ‑ A pprehension immediate violence, not immediately apprehends violence ‑ McIntyre (2009) ‑ B ruising/scratching enough Actus Rea ‑ Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) ‑ Pung a person into apprehension of impending physical contract (effect ‑ Chan‑Fook (1994) ‑ Can include psychiatric injury, on vicm’s mind) or actual unlawful contact though it must be a recognised condion and it ‑ Pemble (1971) ‑ V icm must be aware of accused’s acons to cause apprehension of unlawful contact requires expert evidence ‑ Barton v Armstrong [1969] ‑ W ords are enough ‑ Williams (1990) ‑ O ccurrence of ABH ‑ MacPherson v Brown (1975) ‑ Intenon to effect unlawful contact or create an apprehension ‑ including recklessness w here relevant consequences are adverted (actual knowledge required) t o if not desired ‑ Coulter (1987); Williams (1990) ‑ No need for specific Mens Rea (s ubjecve foresight as to possibility [ NOT PROBABILITY] of some physical harm) (basic intent) intent to cause ABH, sufficient if assault was ‑ Edwards v Police (1998) ‑ Advertent recklessness will suffice ‑ did not desire to cause fear but realises reckless/intenonal ( basic intent) that conduct may & persists. ‑ Consent is not a defence when anything beyond actual ‑ Police v Greaves (1994) ‑ C ondional threats may constute assault if it was condion that person bodily harm is involved could not lawfully impose ‑ Brown (1994) ‑ Public interest > Consensual, private, ‑ DPP v JWH (1994) ‑ Sping may be assault, dependent on the circumstances (actual sado‑masochisc acvies, regardless of whether vicms contact/apprehension of unlawful contact) Notes had ‘complained’.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences Against the Person and General Principles (1992)
    Legislating the Criminal Code OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 218 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 218) CRIMINAL LAW LEGISLATING THE CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND GENERALPRINCIPLES Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty November 1993 LONDON : HMSO E1 5.30 net Cm 2370 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Mr Trevor M. Aldridge, Q.C. Professor Jack Beatson Mr Richard Buxton, Q.C. Professor Brenda Hoggett, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. THE LAW COMMISSION LEGISLATING THE CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONTENTS Paragraphs Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The history and purpose of this project 1.1-1.6 1 PART II. THE NEED FOR ACTION 3 Introduction 2.1-2.4 3 The response on consultation on LCCP 122 3.1-3.7 4 Justice and practicality 4.1-4.8 5 PART Ilk NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGATNST THE PERSON 8 Introduction 5.1-5.2 8 Fault terms 6.1-6.2 8 “Intention” 7.1-7.14 8 Introduction 7.1-7.3 8 The basic definition: intention as ‘purpose” 7.47.5 9 A special and limited case 7.6-7.14 9 “Recklessness” 8.1-10.4 11 Introduction 8.1-8.3 11 A brief history 9.1-9.6 11 The need for definition 10.1-10.4 13 OFFENCES COMMITTED BY OMISSION 11.1 14 Offences subject to liability
    [Show full text]
  • Psychic Powers
    PSYCHIC POWERS Written by John Ossoway with contributions from Gary Cooper, Graham Raynes and Tyrone Williams Psychic Powers – Last Updated: 15/02/2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Psychic Powers .................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .........................................................................................3 History..................................................................................................3 Psychic Awakening.............................................................................3 The Metasensory Academy Graduate ...............................................3 MetaPol........................................................................................................................................... 3 The Psychic Operations Group....................................................................................................... 3 What Next? ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Prejudice:.............................................................................................4 The Psychic Player Character............................................................4 Chance of Psychic Ability ............................................................................................................... 4 Starting Talents and Levels ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]